644 F. App'x 468
6th Cir.2016Background
- Rebecca Hernandez (age 27) applied for SSI based on major depression, bipolar II disorder, and anxiety; she has history of hospitalization (2007), intermittent treatment, and varying medication compliance.
- She never worked, has a GED, and reports limited daily functioning: needs accompaniment for many outings, avoids driving, performs basic household tasks, and has difficulty sustaining tasks when unmedicated.
- Treating therapist Dr. Dittemore completed a check-box medical source statement (MSS) indicating numerous marked and extreme limitations but provided little explanatory narrative.
- Two state agency consultants opined Hernandez could perform unskilled, non-public work; the ALJ gave those opinions little weight.
- The ALJ found Hernandez not disabled, assigned an RFC for simple, repetitive tasks with only occasional public interaction, discounted the MSS and parts of claimant and third-party testimony, and relied on a vocational expert; the district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to treating physician (Dr. Dittemore) under the treating-physician rule | Hernandez: ALJ failed to give "good reasons" and improperly rejected a treating source MSS | Commissioner: MSS was a check-box form unsupported by objective evidence and conclusions reserved to the Commissioner, so discounting it was proper | Held: ALJ's reasons were adequately inferable and any error was harmless because the MSS was patently deficient and unsupported |
| Whether ALJ erred in giving little weight to state agency consultants | Hernandez: consultants’ opinions were consistent with record and should have been credited | Commissioner: consultants’ opinions lacked discussion of medication compliance and effect, limiting their value | Held: Any error in discounting them was harmless because their opinions were of limited value without addressing medication adherence/effects |
| Whether the RFC is unsupported because ALJ rejected or gave little weight to all medical opinions | Hernandez: RFC cannot stand if it is not grounded in any credited medical opinion | Commissioner: RFC is supported by other record evidence and aligns with consultants’ conclusions that survived in part | Held: RFC was supported by substantial evidence (objective records, claimant admissions, and some consultant alignment); ALJ did not fabricate RFC from whole cloth |
| Whether ALJ improperly discredited claimant and third-party testimony (credibility) | Hernandez: ALJ’s adverse credibility findings were unsupported/boilerplate | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies, medication noncompliance, and claimant’s admitted abilities | Held: Credibility determination was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence; no compelling reason to overturn |
Key Cases Cited
- Ealy v. Commissioner of Social Security, 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (review limited to record before the ALJ and plaintiff bears burden to prove disability)
- Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard defined)
- Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security, 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (framework for assessing credibility and using entire record)
- Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (treating-physician rule and "good reasons" requirement)
- Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (limitations must be assessed for sustained, work-related functioning)
- Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058 (3d Cir. 1993) (form reports/check-box opinions are weak evidence)